JGLarson's reviews

  • Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC

    8 out of 10 points and recommended
    Extremely sharp, very compact, yet a wide max aperature
    No 17mm or even 16mm, No IS like the expensive Canon

    As a Pro, this is the first lens that I purchased when I switched from Nikon/Fuji to the Canon system 1.5 years ago. I first got the Canon 20D, and thought this would be a great all purpose lens. And yes, it is. I wanted a general purpose wedding lens, that could focus in dim situations. This was before Canon came out with their 17-55 f/2.8 IS, but if I were buying today, I think I would have a tough time justifying the Canon lens that was 2x the price, poorer close focus range, ~50% heavier, and bigger, just to get Image Stabilization.

    I was originally going to couple it with a 100mm Canon Macro, and the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS to round out my begining kit. The 100 had focus accuracy issues, and had to be returned. But I found that the found that the range of the Sigma lens, it's close focus abilities, and it's resolution more than satisfactory. I have used it alot on location, but even used it for small studio catalog photography.

    The resolution is very high at all apertures, and even good wide open. Sigma seems to have definately tweaked the optics to excell on a smaller chip camera, as I compared this to my friend's Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L series lens (full frame lens). The Sigma equalled or out-performed the L lens in resolution and flair control (for about 1/3 the price) in the entire zoom range (I have since also purchased a 17-40mm f/4L lens for my 5D, since my results with the 16-35 were so marginal).

    Construction is not overly robust, but more than adequate, roughly equal to the Tamron 28-75 that I previously owned. The Tamron 17-50 lens was not out when I chose this lens, so I couldn't compare it at the time ( though I have been very pleased with 2 Tamron lenses when I owned Nikon/Fuji).

    reviewed January 13th, 2007 (purchased for $450)

  • Canon TS-E 90mm f/2.8

    9 out of 10 points and recommended
    Great resolution, Tilt and shift are waaay more useful than shift alone
    have to modify it to change the axis of shift with tilt, a little bulky (but not bad)

    This lens is superb optically. I use it mainly in the studio for table top shots. I found that it is far more flexible for small jewelry products than when I used a 100mm Macro, because of the tilt feature. I have used it with the 2x Teleconverter to achieve very close results.

    I don't miss the lack of Auto Focus, because my 30D, and 5D will give me the same focus point confirmation when I manually focus. I love the fact that the aperture is set on the camera (on Canons), rather than a on lens preset aperture style, like I had on my old Nikon 28mm PC lens.

    Even though they are vastly different in price, many photographers will wonder why not just get the "Lens Baby" to get that "tilt in and out of focus" effect. While I do own a Lens Baby for fun portrait work, they are great. But the Canon TS series is way more practical for product photo work, and except for the new 3G versions the LB's are almost impossible to repeat their effect.

    Anyone who shoots seriously should try renting this lens (or one of the oher focal lengths), and they will want to buy one. I also have the 45mm version, which I use for larger products, and general purpose location work, and am considering the 24mm one too.

    reviewed January 13th, 2007 (purchased for $1,150)

  • Canon TS-E 45mm f/2.8

    9 out of 10 points and recommended
    Great resolution. Tilt and shift together are way more useful than shift alone
    Bulky, have to modify it to change the axis of shift with tilt

    This lens is superb optically. I use it in the studio for general product photography, and on location to acheive the Scheimplug effect. Though it doesn't completely replace the benefits of a full View Camera, it's amazing how close it comes to what I would do with a view camera. I can also increase the effective Resolution/file size of an image by stitching multiple shifted images together.

    I don't miss the lack of Auto Focus, because my 30D, and 5D will give me the same focus point confirmation when I manually focus. I love the fact that the aperture is set on the camera (on Canons), rather than a on lens preset aperture style, like I had on my old Nikon 28mm PC lens.


    Even though they are vastly different in price, many photographers will wonder why not just get the "Lens Baby" to get that "tilt in and out of focus" effect. While I do own a Lens Baby for fun portrait work, they are great. But the Canon TS series is way more practical for product photo work, and except for the new 3G versions the LB's are almost impossible to repeat their effect.

    Anyone who shoots seriously should try renting one of these T/S lenses, and they will want to buy one. I also have the 90mm version, which I use for smaller products, and am considering the 24mm one too.

    reviewed January 13th, 2007 (purchased for $1,150)

  • Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

    9 out of 10 points and recommended
    Great Sharpness, fast aperture, the IS works AMAZINGLY well
    Not a light, little lens. Causes attention because of it's size, even when unwanted

    This lens was one of the first lenses that I got when I switched from Nikon/Fuji to Canon 1.5 years ago. I had always wanted a IS version when I had the Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8, so I was determined to get it when I switched ( getting the tripod collar was an added bonus compared to my older Nikkor). While it wasn't cheap, I am very glad I got IS. I have hand held this lens in places I wouldn't have dreamed of without it.

    This lens is one of my 3 main workhorse lenses.

    Resolution is supurb at all focal lengths, and very good wide open. Flair control is excellent also. I try to stop down any lens, and the IS helps to balance aperture with hand holdability. Add the Canon 2x teleconverter and you have a very portable and reasonably sharp 400mm Tele lens combo.

    The only 2 down-sides of the lens are it's size/weight, and the sometimes unwanted attention that it commands from people because it's big and professional looking.

    reviewed January 13th, 2007 (purchased for $1,650)

  • Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM

    9 out of 10 points and recommended
    Fantastic zoom range, optically great. IS is great
    slight Vignetting at 24mm, slight barrel distortion at 24mm

    This lens has become my main lens, that stays on my 5D most of the time. I can't say enough good things about this lens. Optically great even at wide apertures. Flair is well controlled.

    The focal range is much more to my liking than the 24-70mm, and the IS makes it a icing on a very nice cake. The slight vignetteing, and the barrel distortion that occurs at the 24mm possition is a non issue to me, because I am able to fix it so easily in Photoshop with the PTLens plugin. Often times I don't even notice it, even without fixing it in PS.

    All around a truely GREAT lens. One that will go down in Canon history as GREAT and classic lens. It's a fantastic balance of a reasonably fast aperture, a very pleasing zoom range, relatively light in weight and size, along with fantastic IMAGE STABILIZATION.

    reviewed January 13th, 2007 (purchased for $1,050)

  • Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

    8 out of 10 points and recommended
    Great IQ in compact, light package
    None on Full Frame camera, limited zoom range on a 1.6x format camera

    Great IQ stopped down, and very good even wide open. Flair control much beter than the 16-35L. Distortion minor at 17mm and easily fixed in Photoshop.

    This lens is in my main core lens group of 3 lenses that is ALWAYS with me. I got this lens to be my ultra wide lens on my 5D. I already owned a 30D (originally a 20D), and with the 30D camera I use a Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 DC zoom as my general purpose walk around lens.

    While the Canon 17-40L is a great lens and could function as a general purpose lens on a 1.6x camera body, it don't think it would be my best choice if I only owned a 1.6x camera. On a APS-c camera the 17-40 doesn't offer as much zoom range as I would prefer, and I would be mildly frustrated with the f/4 maximum aperture. (I don't have those concerns with my 24-105mm IS Canon on a 5D, because of the Image Stabilization). If you know you will eventually own both FF and APS-c cameras, then the 17-40 can work reasonably well on both.

    I originally considered the Canon 16-35mm f/2.8, but upon testing it I was very disapointed with the resolution, and poor flair control (especially for a $1400 lens). Distortion was greater on the 16-35 also, but I normally fix that stuff in PS. Bottom line is that the 17-40 is just a better optic. If you can live with f/4, and don't mind NOT spending twice as much for the 16-35L, you will be very happy the 17-40. Since the 17-40 is intended to be a wide angle for my 5D, not a walk around lens for my APS-c camera, the f/4 issue is no problem at all.

    reviewed January 13th, 2007 (purchased for $740)